Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > General Music
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-22-2011, 04:55 PM   #81 (permalink)
.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,507
Default

Me neither :/
someonecompletelyrandom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2011, 09:27 AM   #82 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Dr.Tchock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 31
Default

In retrospective I just say The Beatles are truly the best example to get across what I mean.

Let's speculate: an alien being oblivious to all human culture, lands tomorrow in any given city and is given to listen "Strawberry Fields Forever" followed by "Poker Face". Does anyone here think that we would behold the former as the vastly superior piece to the latter. What if we add Mozart's "Requiem"? (well an alien probably would not understand music the same way we do)

The thing is without all the cultural back load, and the time and place, and the dreadful influence on other bands no one would class The Beatles as the creme de la creme or the perennial "Best band of All Time". It's pop music, it "sold out before you even heard their names", so to speak. But I'm beign to cryptic.

What I say is either art is a category and quality is first and foremost a subjective judgment of value (and a personal one at that), or art is the judgment of value by itself and somethings are art and others merely entertainment. You can't do both. And I'm certainly a bigger fan of the former, witch is why the responses to the original review sparked my interest.

It's a bunch of guys pissed off that all the mainstream today is crap compared to the golden age of Pop, being pissed off that someone thinks the golden age of Pop is crap compared to the old art music (or Classical).

PS: I define Pop not as a genre but as all recorded music intended to be sold in any commercial manner.
Dr.Tchock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2011, 10:05 AM   #83 (permalink)
\/ GOD
 
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nowhere...
Posts: 2,161
Default

I honestly don't get your point entirely. Are you trying to insinuate somehow there are not varying levels of quality in music?

Fact of the matter is, some music is good, and some isn't. Pop in the 60s wasn't great but it was better.

As for Beatles vs Gaga. Beatles took risks, Gaga does not. The argument from my end boils entirely down to that. As for classical music, classical music isn't always better but has an amazing potential to be better for the fact it isn't built off the concept of taking 5-10 seconds of melody, and looping them in chambers. BOTH Beatles era AND Gaga's era did their piece in disintegrating the integrity of music. Mozart isn't even the best example. Look into what late 1800s, early 1900s composers were doing. Guys like Stravinsky, Bartok, etc. The sheer amount of craftsmanship, and effort blows EVERYTHING in these pop eras out of the water.

In terms of melodic complexity, music has definitely got significantly simpler from these eras. Jazz, and Classical which are the most complex forms of music have faded away from the mainstream, and only pop up occasionally as a supplement. As somebody who knows this music I have heavily criticized both acts(Gaga, and Beatles), and if your point is that I have the right to, then I agree.

However, if your point is that "If you criticize one you can't criticize the other" then I can't agree. Beatles, and Gaga are different things, and Beatles is significantly better. Overrated, but better. There are things you've never heard of that are significantly better than both. Take Koenji Hyakkei for example. They're somewhat well known in the prog, and Japanophile crowd but generally not really. I'd dare say there more interesting than Gaga, Mozart, and the Beatles. Beatles are more interesting than Gaga, and Mozart... etc.

There is no idiocy, or hypocrisy in assuming one is better than the other just because they are "different things" at all.

Lets say we're talking about movies, and the Beatles is The Godfather(good, yet massively overrated), Mozart is Citizen Kane(Good, outdated, yet architypical), and Lady Gaga is Airbud(Cheesy, fun, and simple. Aimed only at it's target audience.).

You can say that you like the Godfather better than Citizen Kane, you can even say you like Airbud better than the Godfather if you really hate the Godfather. However, it does not make the mass consensus hypocrites to think Citizen Kane, and Godfather are generally better movies than Airbud. Nor does it make one a hypocrite for liking something like I don't know, Sin City(Great movie, technical masterpiece, not necessarily hugely significant, or influential from a historical viewpoint, Koenji Hyakkei) better than all of them.

Just as film, it's up to you to discern, and it's not idiocy or hypocrisy for liking one thing, and saying another is better no matter what it is. It's just a matter of opinion. Just as any artform, there are varying levels of quality that must be acknowledged(reason we have movie critics), and those are up to a measure of interpretation(also why we have critics).

For that fact I still a tad offensive to hint at 'mass idiocy' when your original topic came up. Especially when your point lacked any validity or direction.
__________________
Quote:
Terence Hill, as recently confirmed during an interview to an Italian TV talk-show, was offered the role but rejected it because he considered it "too violent". Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta declined the role for the same reason. When Al Pacino was considered for the role of John Rambo, he turned it down when his request that Rambo be more of a madman was rejected.
Al Pacino = God
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2011, 12:32 PM   #84 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Dr.Tchock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 31
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skaligojurah View Post
I honestly don't get your point entirely. Are you trying to insinuate somehow there are not varying levels of quality in music?

Fact of the matter is, some music is good, and some isn't. Pop in the 60s wasn't great but it was better.

As for Beatles vs Gaga. Beatles took risks, Gaga does not. The argument from my end boils entirely down to that. As for classical music, classical music isn't always better but has an amazing potential to be better for the fact it isn't built off the concept of taking 5-10 seconds of melody, and looping them in chambers. BOTH Beatles era AND Gaga's era did their piece in disintegrating the integrity of music. Mozart isn't even the best example. Look into what late 1800s, early 1900s composers were doing. Guys like Stravinsky, Bartok, etc. The sheer amount of craftsmanship, and effort blows EVERYTHING in these pop eras out of the water.

In terms of melodic complexity, music has definitely got significantly simpler from these eras. Jazz, and Classical which are the most complex forms of music have faded away from the mainstream, and only pop up occasionally as a supplement. As somebody who knows this music I have heavily criticized both acts(Gaga, and Beatles), and if your point is that I have the right to, then I agree.

However, if your point is that "If you criticize one you can't criticize the other" then I can't agree. Beatles, and Gaga are different things, and Beatles is significantly better. Overrated, but better. There are things you've never heard of that are significantly better than both. Take Koenji Hyakkei for example. They're somewhat well known in the prog, and Japanophile crowd but generally not really. I'd dare say there more interesting than Gaga, Mozart, and the Beatles. Beatles are more interesting than Gaga, and Mozart... etc.

There is no idiocy, or hypocrisy in assuming one is better than the other just because they are "different things" at all.

Lets say we're talking about movies, and the Beatles is The Godfather(good, yet massively overrated), Mozart is Citizen Kane(Good, outdated, yet architypical), and Lady Gaga is Airbud(Cheesy, fun, and simple. Aimed only at it's target audience.).

You can say that you like the Godfather better than Citizen Kane, you can even say you like Airbud better than the Godfather if you really hate the Godfather. However, it does not make the mass consensus hypocrites to think Citizen Kane, and Godfather are generally better movies than Airbud. Nor does it make one a hypocrite for liking something like I don't know, Sin City(Great movie, technical masterpiece, not necessarily hugely significant, or influential from a historical viewpoint, Koenji Hyakkei) better than all of them.

Just as film, it's up to you to discern, and it's not idiocy or hypocrisy for liking one thing, and saying another is better no matter what it is. It's just a matter of opinion. Just as any artform, there are varying levels of quality that must be acknowledged(reason we have movie critics), and those are up to a measure of interpretation(also why we have critics).

For that fact I still a tad offensive to hint at 'mass idiocy' when your original topic came up. Especially when your point lacked any validity or direction.
You missed my point.

Music criticism is ALWAYS based on subjective terms. Of course, as objectively as possible one can say that the "Eroica" is miles above whatever is on Top 40 (or anything from The Beatles). And it is. That's something I readily state in my OP.

All I was saying is that it's disingenuous to bash your random top 40 pop star in favour of a more "critically acclaimed" pop group while snickering at the proposal that if your gonna have standarts you might as well go all the way. The bar was set much, much higher then the Beatles.

A valid analogy is proposing that The Godfather is indeed a better movie than Airbud (never seen it) while responding to the claim that anything by Kubrick or Tarkovsky blows it out of the water (Godfather that is, and they do) by back tracking, claiming your opponent is a snob, etc, etc...

I mean Michael Bay certainly does not have the same goal as any given "serious" director, yet one still judges both by the same standards. There is a market that wants these kind of movies, just fun and entertainment, and many even subjectively prefer them to the "art films". Yet noone cries when Michael Bay isn't talked in the same breath as a Sergio Leone or someone like that. Yet the statment that The Beatles are no where near your "top" composers did cause quite a ruckus.

Anyways, coherence is for the stale of mind. The thoughts I had when I wrote the OP aren't as fresh, if not fully metamorphosed into something else, by now. Just trying to get some discussion going.

Last edited by Dr.Tchock; 01-26-2011 at 12:41 PM.
Dr.Tchock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2011, 01:45 PM   #85 (permalink)
\/ GOD
 
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nowhere...
Posts: 2,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Tchock View Post
All I was saying is that it's disingenuous to bash your random top 40 pop star in favour of a more "critically acclaimed" pop group while snickering at the proposal that if your gonna have standarts you might as well go all the way. The bar was set much, much higher then the Beatles.
My point is that it isn't. There's gradients of quality, and everyone puts what they listen to where they want to. Nothing disingenuous about it.
__________________
Quote:
Terence Hill, as recently confirmed during an interview to an Italian TV talk-show, was offered the role but rejected it because he considered it "too violent". Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta declined the role for the same reason. When Al Pacino was considered for the role of John Rambo, he turned it down when his request that Rambo be more of a madman was rejected.
Al Pacino = God
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2011, 11:48 PM   #86 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
zachsd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 347
Default

I think The Beatles are a great band that made great music, but I just think they're kind of soulless. I don't think this because they made popular music, but because their music doesn't really mean anything to me. For me to really like a musician and for them to be one of my favorite artists, they have to really connect with me. Maybe there were just too many good musicians in the band and their different messages/souls sort of canceled each other out and got muddled. I just don't see any message in their music. I feel like I don't know any of the Beatles any better by listening to their music. Of course, this is a very personal opinion, but an opinion nonetheless. On the other hand, I feel like soul is definitely in John and George's solo work.

Maybe it's something about musicians working in a collaborative effort that just turns me off. Now that I think about it my favorite musicians are usually solo artists. Their ultimate message and personality is just more clear to me.
__________________

zachsd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 10:10 AM   #87 (permalink)
Supernatural anaesthetist
 
Dotoar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Posts: 434
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon View Post
Do people overstate the case for the Beatles? Hell yes.
Lists like that could be found about other bands as well, and frankly, that particular list is just cold facts which one may or may not use to back up their opinion. I still haven't heard anyone, besides Lennon, claim The Beatles as the second coming of christ or anything.
__________________
- More is more -
Dotoar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 10:26 AM   #88 (permalink)
Supernatural anaesthetist
 
Dotoar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Posts: 434
Default

The one thing that keeps lurking in the back of my head while skimming through this thread is the fact that the only reason why Lady Gaga is the subject of comparisation with The Beatles is that it's 2011 and not 2001. Or 1991.
__________________
- More is more -
Dotoar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 11:03 AM   #89 (permalink)
Blue Pill Oww
 
PoorOldPo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Luimneach, Eire
Posts: 1,039
Default

I hate ranking music in superiority.
PoorOldPo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 11:04 AM   #90 (permalink)
\/ GOD
 
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nowhere...
Posts: 2,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorOldPo View Post
I hate ranking music in superiority.
What about effort?
__________________
Quote:
Terence Hill, as recently confirmed during an interview to an Italian TV talk-show, was offered the role but rejected it because he considered it "too violent". Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta declined the role for the same reason. When Al Pacino was considered for the role of John Rambo, he turned it down when his request that Rambo be more of a madman was rejected.
Al Pacino = God
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.